Since the success of VCU has once again ignited the "who should make the tournament' discussions, because many professional talking heads deemed it unworthy of inclusion, it brings me back to a couple of my favorite subjects.

1. What is the proper size of the field in the tourney? 1.1 My personal favorite is EVERYONE with teams playing at 64 sites with 5-6 teams per site in the first round with 2 teams seeded/site and the rest drawn randomly. Then advance on a true geographic basis. Throw out this garbage of sending Eastern teams to Seattle for 'balance'. Bring the game back to the fans. A six team field at Conseco (or even Lucas Oil because you could draw 30M +) with Butler, IUPUI, Ball State, ISU, IU and Purdue would essentially revive the spirit of the old HS Sectionals and make the games accessible to the fans w/o money to burn. Across the country, this would be the most intense round with local rivalries off the scale. It would be a better tourney, no talking heads pontificating about who belongs in and who doesn't. If it is good enough for the HS purists it should be good enough for the NCAA. And, no, the regular season would not be meaningless. 1.2 My second is: shrink the field to 32 or as many spots as there are conferences with at least 8 members. One team per conference and maybe 1 or 2 independents who play their own qualifying tourney(s) Win your tourney (if one is held) or win your conference or go home. The tourneys had meaning then in EVERY league. Why should certain leagues get a pass. This system would immediately both spread out the talent across most of the leagues and probably concentrate it at the top of a very few teams in each league. This has the merit of opening the door to success to many mid-major leagues who would get major league talent.

2. Should a more rigorous academic progress standard be implemented? The one and done syndrome, sometimes called "Caliparitis", is becoming the norm at more schools, like North Carolina and Ohio State, in addition to Ky. I liked the 9/5 rule but it was tossed and made the game more professional. Call me old fashioned but I think the game ought to be about real students getting degrees and playing 4 years and the rules should be structured to encourage that.

3. Why do so many leagues get only 1 bid and continually 'take it' in the current system??? Is there really such a difference between WSU, MUS, Murray State, the FIVE teams in the Horizon League that beat Butler, and other teams with which I am not so familiar that NONE of them every deserve a bid if they lose in their conference tourneys? Why not a DIFFERENT RULE??? Va. Tech was been on the bubble and bounced 4 straight years and everyone moans about poor Seth Greenberg but who the heck is watching out for WSU which just bounced them in the NIT??? For example and with rough figures: Why not a rule that 20% of each conference is guaranteed a spot in the field AND that 33%% of each conference is the maximum can make the field??? 2 Valley teams every year with a chance for a 3rd. 4 Big East Teams with a chance for 5. Tweak it to come up with 96 teams. Give 32 top seeds a bye and play 33-96